Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)Section 20 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Tata Tea Ltd vs The Commmissioner Of Customs, Chennai on 25 November, 1999
6. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that magnetic heads are imported by the Appellants who after using the same, sends them abroad for re-lapping, that after re-lapping, the magnetic heads are re-imported, Section 20 of the Customs Act provides that "If goods are imported into India after exportation therefrom, such goods shall be liable to duty and be subject to all the conditions and restrictions, if any to which goods of the like kind and value are liable or subject, on the importation thereof. The Supreme Court has also confirmed in the case of Tata Tea Ltd., supra, that imported goods would include re-imported goods as well and the goods sent out of India and re-imported would also be liable to payment of duty in the same manner in which they would have been liable if imported for the first time in India. It is thus evident that on re-importation of goods, it would be liable to payment of duty as if imported for the first time in India. Accordingly provisions of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act would also be attracted which provides that any article which is imported into India shall be liable to Additional Duty equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India. It is not the case of the Appellants that what is being re-imported by them is not a "magnetic head" which is produced or manufactured. For the purpose of levy of duty on goods, it is not material as to after what process an article is imported or re-imported into India. The test laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Hyderabad Industries Ltd. is whether the imported article is one which has been manufactured or pro-
Durga Metal Works (P) Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 21 June, 2001
Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Durga Metal Works v. Union of India [2001 (131) E.L.T. 544 (Cal.)]
Section 3 in Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Synchron Machine Tools P. Ltd. And ... vs U.M. Suresh Rao on 17 September, 1992
3. The learned Advocate mentioned that a careful study of the said explanation will make it clear that the additional duty is leviable if Central Excise Duty is leviable on like articles manufactured or produced in India; that the Magnetic Head under the import are repaired Magnetic Heads and the same cannot be equated with new ones; that there is nothing on record to establish that Central Excise Duty is leviable on repaired goods and consequently Additional Customs duty is not leviable on repaired goods; that the issue to be decided is whether any Central Excise Duty would have been charged if the magnetic head was got repaired in India; that repair does not amount to manufacture and, therefore, no Central Excise duty is leviable on the repair of goods. He relied upon the decision in the case of Hyderabad industries Ltd. v. U.O.L [1999 (108) E.L.T. 321 (S.C)] wherein the Court observed that as per Explanation, if an imported article is one which has been manufactured or produced then it must be presumed that such article can likewise be manufactured or produced in India. If the article cannot be subjected to excise levy because it is not produced or manufactured, then on the import of like articles no additional duty can be levied.
Section 2 in The Customs Tariff Act, 1975 [Entire Act]
The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Thermax Private Limited vs Collector Of Customs (Bombay) New ... on 19 August, 1992
The Supreme Court also observed that as held in the Thermax Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [1992 (61) E.L.T. 352 (S.C.)] "we have to forget that the goods are imported, imagine that the importer had manufactured the goods in India and determine the amount of excise duty that he would have been called upon to pay in that event."